Despite the enormous progress made in scaling up antiretroviral therapy (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa, many challenges remain, not least of which are the identification and management of patients who have failed first-line therapy. Less than 3% of patients are receiving second-line treatment at present, whereas 15-25% of patients have detectable viral loads 12 months or more into treatment, of whom a substantial proportion might have virological failure. We discuss the reasons why virological ART failure is likely to be under-diagnosed in the routine health system, and address the current difficulties with standard recommended second-line ART regimens. The development of new diagnostic tools for ART failure, in particular a point-of-care HIV viral-load test, combined with simple and inexpensive second-line therapy, such as boosted protease-inhibitor monotherapy, could revolutionise the management of ART failure in resource-limited settings.

Although it is a standard practice in high-income countries, determination of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) load is not recommended in developing countries because of the costs and technical constraints. As more and more countries establish capacity to provide second-line therapy, and as costs and technological constraints associated with viral load testing decrease, the question of whether determination of the viral load is necessary deserves attention. Viral load testing could increase in importance as a guide for clinical decisions on when to switch to second-line treatment and on how to optimize the duration of the first-line treatment regimen. In addition, the viral load is a particularly useful tool for monitoring adherence to treatment, performing sentinel surveillance, and diagnosing HIV infection in children aged <18 months. Rather than considering viral load data to be an unaffordable luxury, efforts should be made to ensure that viral load testing becomes affordable, simple, and easy to use in resource-limited settings.

CONTEXT: Rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy reduces the plasma concentrations of nevirapine and efavirenz. The virological consequences of these interactions are not well described. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of concomitant efavirenz- or nevirapine-based combination antiretroviral therapy and rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort analysis of prospectively collected routine clinical data in a community-based South African antiretroviral treatment program. Antiretroviral treatment-naive adults enrolled between May 2001 and June 2006 were included in the analysis, and were followed up until the end of 2006. INTERVENTIONS: Patients starting antiretroviral therapy with or without concurrent antitubercular therapy received either efavirenz or nevirapine at standard doses. Patients developing tuberculosis while taking antiretroviral therapy that included nevirapine were either changed to efavirenz or continued taking nevirapine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Viral load of 400 copies/mL or more after 6, 12, and 18 months of antiretroviral therapy; time to the first viral load of 400 copies/mL or more; time to confirmed virological failure (2 consecutive values > or = 5000 copies/mL); time to death; and time to treatment-limiting toxicity were assessed. RESULTS: The analysis included 2035 individuals who started antiretroviral therapy with efavirenz (1074 with concurrent tuberculosis) and 1935 with nevirapine (209 with concurrent tuberculosis). There were no differences in time to death or substitution of either antiretroviral drug for toxicity with and without concurrent tuberculosis. Patients starting nevirapine with concurrent tuberculosis were at a higher risk of elevated viral load most notably at 6 months (16.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6%-23.5%) than those without tuberculosis (8.3%; 95% CI, 6.7%-10.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; and in the combined estimate, adjusted OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6). In the time-to-event analysis of confirmed virological failure (2 consecutive values of > or = 5000 copies/mL), patients starting nevirapine with concurrent tuberculosis developed virological failure sooner (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7). There were no differences between patients starting efavirenz with and without concurrent tuberculosis (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5 [combined estimate] and adjusted HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0, respectively). There was no difference in time to virological rebound in patients free of tuberculosis and those developing tuberculosis during follow-up while taking nevirapine (adjusted HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0) or efavirenz (adjusted HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.7). CONCLUSION: In this cohort study, virological outcomes were inferior when nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy was commenced while taking antitubercular treatment (vs without concurrent tuberculosis) but comparable when starting efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (vs without concurrent tuberculosis) or when tuberculosis developed while taking established nevirapine- or efavirenz-based therapies.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of second-line protease-inhibitor regimens in Médecins Sans Frontières HIV programmes, and determine switch rates, clinical outcomes, and factors associated with survival. DESIGN/METHODS: We used patient data from 62 Médecins Sans Frontières programmes and included all antiretroviral therapy-naive adults (> 15 years) at the start of antiretroviral therapy and switched to a protease inhibitor-containing regimen with at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor change after more than 6 months of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor first-line use. Cumulative switch rates and survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and mortality predictors were investigated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of 48,338 adults followed on antiretroviral therapy, 370 switched to a second-line regimen after a median of 20 months (switch rate 4.8/1000 person-years). Median CD4 cell count at switch was 99 cells/microl (interquartile ratio 39-200; n = 244). A lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen was given to 51% of patients and nelfinavir-based regimen to 43%; 29% changed one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and 71% changed two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Median follow-up on second-line antiretroviral therapy was 8 months, and probability of remaining in care at 12 months was 0.86. Median CD4 gains were 90 at 6 months and 135 at 12 months. Death rates were higher in patients in World Health Organization stage 4 at antiretroviral therapy initiation and in those with CD4 nadir count less than 50 cells/microl. CONCLUSION: The rate of switch to second-line treatment in antiretroviral therapy-naive adults on non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line antiretroviral therapy was relatively low, with good early outcomes observed in protease inhibitor-based second-line regimens. Severe immunosuppression was associated with increased mortality on second-line treatment.

A growing proportion of patients on antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings have switched to second-line regimens. We carried out a systematic review in order to summarize reported rates and reasons for virological failure among people on second-line therapy in resource-limited settings.

With expanding pediatric antiretroviral therapy (ART) access, children will begin to experience treatment failure and require second-line therapy. We evaluated the probability and determinants of virologic failure and switching in children in South Africa.

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different
formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export.
The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.